Matter of Szlepcsik v. County of Suffolk
Docket 2024-13011
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Administrative
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02408
- Docket
- 2024-13011
Appeal from an order granting respondent's CPLR 3211(a) and 7804(f) motion to dismiss a CPLR article 78 petition challenging an agency determination of disqualification for police employment
Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal of a CPLR article 78 petition challenging Suffolk County Department of Civil Service's May 22, 2024 determination that the petitioner was not qualified for hire as a police officer after an adverse psychological evaluation. The court held that the appointing authority has broad discretion in determining fitness for law enforcement, may rely on its own medical evaluators even when a candidate produces a contrary independent opinion, and that the Department's decision was not irrational or arbitrary. Because the agency acted reasonably, the court would not substitute its judgment for the administrative factfinder.
Issues Decided
- Whether the Department of Civil Service's decision to disqualify the petitioner from police employment based on its psychological evaluation was arbitrary or irrational
- Whether a court may substitute its judgment for the appointing authority when conflicting professional medical opinions exist
- Whether the appointing authority may rely on its own medical personnel over a candidate's independent psychologist
Court's Reasoning
The court applied the principle that appointing authorities have wide discretion in judging fitness for law enforcement and that their determinations stand unless irrational or arbitrary. It held that the Department reasonably relied on its own psychological evaluator and Appeal Committee, and that courts may not weigh evidence or choose between conflicting expert opinions. Because the Department's finding had a rational basis in the record, the court refused to overturn it.
Authorities Cited
- Matter of Brown v County of Nassau214 AD3d 793
- Matter of Winnegar v County of Suffolk13 AD3d 382
- Matter of Thomas v Straub29 AD3d 595
Parties
- Appellant
- Sean Szlepcsik
- Respondent
- County of Suffolk
- Judge
- Betsy Barros, J.P.
- Judge
- Paul Wooten
- Judge
- Janice A. Taylor
- Judge
- James P. McCormack
Key Dates
- Agency determination date
- 2024-05-22
- Supreme Court order and judgment
- 2024-11-13
- Appellate Division decision
- 2026-04-22
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider petition for leave to appeal
If the petitioner wishes to continue, he should consult counsel about filing a motion for leave to the New York Court of Appeals promptly, observing the Court of Appeals' filing requirements and deadlines.
- 2
Consult counsel about reapplication or remediation
The petitioner should discuss with an attorney and a qualified psychologist whether additional evaluation, treatment, or documentation could address the Department's concerns before attempting reapplication.
- 3
Obtain and preserve records
Collect and preserve all evaluation reports, appeal materials, and agency correspondence in case further administrative or judicial review is pursued.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court upheld the agency's decision that the petitioner was not qualified for police employment and affirmed the lower court's dismissal of his challenge.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The petitioner (Sean Szlepcsik) is directly affected; the ruling also confirms that agencies hiring law enforcement may rely on their own medical evaluations.
- Why didn't the court accept the petitioner's independent psychologist's report?
- Because the appointing authority reasonably relied on its own evaluator and the court will not choose between conflicting professional opinions or substitute its judgment for the agency's.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- Yes, the petitioner may seek further review by petitioning the New York Court of Appeals, subject to that court's jurisdiction and discretionary review rules.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Matter of Szlepcsik v County of Suffolk - 2026 NY Slip Op 02408 Matter of Szlepcsik v County of Suffolk 2026 NY Slip Op 02408 April 22, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department In the Matter of Sean Szlepcsik, appellant, v County of Suffolk, respondent. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on April 22, 2026 2024-13011, (Index No. 615346/24) Betsy Barros, J.P. Paul Wooten Janice A. Taylor James P. McCormack, JJ. Christian Killoran, Remsenburg, NY, for appellant. Guercio & Guercio LLP, Farmingdale, NY (Adam I. Kleinberg and Connor Mulry of counsel), for respondent. DECISION & ORDER In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Suffolk County Department of Civil Service dated May 22, 2024, affirming its prior determination that the petitioner was not qualified for employment as a police officer, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Christopher Modelewski, J.), dated November 13, 2024. The order and judgment, in effect, granted the respondent's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and 7804(f) to dismiss the petition, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding. ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs. The petitioner sought employment as a police officer with the Suffolk County Police Department. Candidates for such employment are required to undergo a background investigation and pass a psychological evaluation, among other things. Based on the results of the petitioner's psychological evaluation, he was not recommended for the position, and the Suffolk County Department of Civil Service (hereinafter the Department) notified the petitioner that he had been found not qualified. The petitioner appealed the Department's determination, submitting an independent evaluation by a psychologist who disagreed with the conclusion of the Department's evaluator. Following an appeal interview, the Appeal Committee of the Department concluded that there was no significant evidence to reverse the disqualification. In a determination dated May 22, 2024, the Department affirmed its prior determination that the petitioner was not qualified for employment as a police officer. The petitioner subsequently commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the determination dated May 22, 2024. The County of Suffolk moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and 7804(f) to dismiss the petition. In an order and judgment dated November 13, 2024, the Supreme Court, in effect, granted the County's motion, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding. The petitioner appeals. "An appointing authority has wide discretion in determining the fitness of candidates, and this discretion is particularly broad in the hiring of law enforcement officers, to whom high standards may be applied" ( Matter of Brown v County of Nassau , 214 AD3d 793, 795 [internal quotations marks omitted]; see Matter of Dellisanti v Suffolk County Police Dept. , 239 AD3d 976, 978; Matter of Winnegar v County of Suffolk , 13 AD3d 382, 382). "So long as the administrative determination is not irrational or arbitrary and capricious, this Court will not disturb it" ( Matter of Brown v County of Nassau , 214 AD3d at 795 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Coyle v Kampe , 185 AD3d 1028). "An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts" ( Matter of Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve v New York State Adirondack Park Agency , 34 NY3d 184, 195 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Underhill-Washington Equities, LLC v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal , 157 AD3d 705, 706). "If a determination is rational it must be sustained even if the court concludes that another result would also have been rational" ( Matter of Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve v New York State Adirondack Park Agency , 34 NY3d at 195 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Underhill-Washington Equities, LLC v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal , 157 AD3d at 706-707). "[I]n an article 78 proceeding, the reviewing court may not weigh the evidence, choose between conflicting proof, or substitute its assessment of the evidence or witness credibility for that of the administrative factfinder" ( Matter of Bennett v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Sagaponack , 170 AD3d 716, 717; see Matter of Brown v County of Nassau , 214 AD3d at 796; Matter of Winnegar v County of Suffolk , 13 AD3d at 383). Here, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the Department's determination disqualifying the petitioner from eligibility for the position of police office was neither irrational nor arbitrary and capricious ( see Matter of Brown v County of Nassau , 214 AD3d at 795-796; Matter of Coyle v Kampe , 185 AD3d at 1028; Matter of Winnegar v County of Suffolk , 13 AD3d at 382-383). "In determining whether a candidate is medically qualified to serve as a police officer, the appointing agency is 'entitled to rely upon the findings of its own medical personnel, even if those findings are contrary to those of professionals retained by the candidate'" ( Matter of Brown v County of Nassau , 214 AD3d at 795, quoting Matter of Thomas v Straub , 29 AD3d 595, 596; see Matter of Winnegar v County of Suffolk , 13 AD3d at 383). "It is not for the courts to choose between the diverse professional opinions. That is the function of the proper department heads and as long as they act reasonably and responsibly, the courts will not interfere" ( Matter of Brown v County of Nassau , 214 AD3d at 796 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Winnegar v County of Suffolk , 13 AD3d at 383). Here, the Department was entitled to rely upon the findings of its own personnel in determining the petitioner's psychological fitness for employment, even if those findings were contrary to those of the petitioner's psychologist, and, contrary to the petitioner's contention, "it [wa]s not for the court[ ] to choose between the diverse professional opinions" ( Matter of Brown v County of Nassau , 214 AD3d at 796 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Thomas v Straub , 29 AD3d at 596). The petitioner's remaining contention is without merit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, granted the County's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and 7804(f) to dismiss the petition, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding. BARROS, J.P., WOOTEN, TAYLOR and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph